MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045613653 · doi:10.1101/2020.04.22.20075382

Chest computed tomography (CT) scan findings in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3045613653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Karimian, Milad Azami

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computed tomographyRadiologyMEDLINEPneumoniaInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives Numerous cases of pneumonia of caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in Wuhan, China. Chest computed tomography (CT) scan is highly important in the diagnosis and follow-up of lung disease treatment. The present meta-analysis was performed to evaluate chest CT findings in COVID-19 patients. Materials and Methods All research steps were taken according to the MOOSE protocol and the final report was based on PRISMA guidelines. Each stage of the study was conducted by two independent authors. We searched the Web of Science, Ovid, Science Direct, Scopus, EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, CINAHL and Google scholar databases. The search was conducted on March 20, 2020. Grey literature was searched at medrxiv website. All analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis. The adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias. We registered this review at PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42019127858). Results Finally, 40 eligible studies with 4,183 patients with COVID-19 were used for meta- analysis. The rate of positive chest CT scan in patients with COVID-19 was 94.5% (95%CI: 91.7-96.3). Bilateral lung involvement, pure ground-glass opacity (GGO), mixed (GGO pulse consolidation or reticular), consolidation, reticular, and presence of nodule findings in chest CT scan of COVID-19 pneumonia patients were respectively estimated to be 79.1% (95% CI: 70.8- 85.5), 64.9% (95%CI: 54.1-74.4), 49.2% (95%CI: 35.7-62.8), 30.3% (95%CI: 19.6-43.6), 17.0% (95%CI: 3.9-50.9) and 16.6% (95%CI: 13.6-20.2). The distribution of lung lesions in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was peripheral (70.0% [95%CI: 57.8-79.9]), central (3.9% [95%CI: 1.4-10.6]), and peripheral and central (31.1% [95%CI: 19.5-45.8]). The most common pulmonary lobes involved were right lower lobe (86.5% [95%CI: 57.7-96.8]) and left lower lobe (81.0% [95%CI: 50.5-94.7]). Conclusion Our study showed that chest CT scan has little weakness in diagnosis of COVID-19 combined to personal history, clinical symptoms, and initial laboratory findings, and may therefore serve as a standard method for diagnosis of COVID-19 based on its features and transformation rule, before initial RT-PCR screening.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AIFrench-language works237,207